Laserfiche WebLink
3. Discussion of and possible action on recommending the adoption of fencing regulations. <br />John Fuston questioned the two options on page 3 of 8. Chairman Wilson suggested that <br />the committee get through the document then revisit any issues that need to be addressed. <br />Chairman Wilson said that the committee needed to start on page 7 of 8. <br />A. Construction and maintenance of fences. <br />Don Taylor asked who would the City send a notice to if a fence falls into despair. Steve <br />Brown said when he puts up fences, the fence line is on the property line between the two <br />houses, so would the fence be the property of the person who had the fence built or <br />would each property owner maintain and be responsible for the fence side on their <br />property? Lisa Wright said that Code Enforcement would have to use their judgment on <br />things like this. If the fence along a side property line matches the fence of one house <br />and not the other, you can presume the fence goes with that house. Where they <br />legitimately can't tell the difference, they would probably send the letter to both property <br />owners and let them tell us which one owns it. <br />A motion was made by John House, seconded by Don Taylor, to change the wording of <br />subsection (b) as follows: "If the fence is located along a boundary between two <br />properties, both sides shall be maintained by the owner s of the fence." Motion camed. <br />Opposing were Will Biard and Bee Garmon. <br />B. Nonconforming fences. <br />A motion was made by Steve Brown, seconded by Cheryt Moore, to change subsection <br />(e) Damage or Destruction, as follows: "Any non-conforming fence, or any non- <br />conforming element of a fence capable of change or discontinuance separate from other <br />elements of the fence, damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated by any means to the extent of <br />thirty-five percent (35%) or more shall be removed or brought into conformity with the <br />provisions of this article"; subsection (f)(2) Dilapidated Fences or Walls, as follows: <br />"Each non-conforming fence that is dilapidated or_ deteriorated to the extent that the <br />replacement of more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the fence is required." Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br />C. General Standards for fencing, page 3 of 8 <br />Chairman Wilson asked the Committee if they wanted to give one or two options. Will <br />Biard said he suggested giving two options because the Council might kick it back if the <br />only option is no fences. Pete Kampfer said the purpose of the Committee was to make a <br />recommendation. Everyone was in agreement. <br />A motion was made by Pete Kampfer, seconded by Jim Lassiter, to change subsection (b) <br />Fence heights, (1) Front yard fence requirements, as follows:. (a) No fence shall be <br />permitted in the front yard, except in the Historic Districts, on lots of two acres or more, <br />and in LI and HI districts"; subsection (b) as follows: adding "decorated metal" as an <br />